This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you.

At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry.

Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop.

I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates.

My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party?

Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together.

I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.

Maybe the GOP were too scared to put up a real candidate in 2008 .....AND 2012.

Thats the only thing I can think of...maybe they thought it would be better if a dem won in 08 so that the economic bad news blame could be shifted....and they would take a pounding in the hose & senate for a long time...

Well...I mean thats the only real simple intentional reason I could see.....

but

More likely:

The GOP is in disarray. There are far too many candidates at the extreme end, who do not represent the majority of the people (like me). Mitt was moderate (way too moderate to make the extremists happy) and he had to shift too far to the right (making moderates unhappy)...so basically now no one is happy with him.

He wouldve had a much better chance to get elected had he stuck to his moderate vision, but he wouldnt have gotten any cash from the wealthy extreme donors...so he wouldve lost anyway.

**** politics.

Oh and not to mention that the GOP is divided within by religious extremists as well.....basically the party is doomed unless they can unite under more moderate and less religious leadership.

As a republican aren't you disappointed in Christie. The 2012 race would be very winnable for any republican candidate. Instead Romney only faced two has beens in Santorum and Gingrich. If you compare the last three republican presidents with the last three democratic presidents what jumps out is that the republican candidate were all status quo. Reagan had run four years earlier, George Bush was Vice President and Junior was the son of a former president. I don't know about Jimmy Carter but both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were underdogs when there started. If Romney loses than its nearly guaranteed that Rick Perry will be the candidate. He served his time and it will now his turn.

The GOP is in disarray. There are far too many candidates at the extreme end, who do not represent the majority of the people (like me). Mitt was moderate (way too moderate to make the extremists happy) and he had to shift too far to the right (making moderates unhappy)...so basically now no one is happy with him.

He wouldve had a much better chance to get elected had he stuck to his moderate vision, but he wouldnt have gotten any cash from the wealthy extreme donors...so he wouldve lost anyway.

**** politics.

To me, it's almost a carbon copy of 2008 with McCain. I liked McCain. He was a moderate guy that was forced to run on the far right by the party. As a result, we have no real debate going on, just talking points being spewed by both sides.

To understand why 2012 boasted a weak field of presidential candidates you must understand the influence of money in politics. Romney had either lined up most of the big money, or neutralized it. The people who would have backed a Chris Christie were already backing Romney. The only real money threat came from Rick Perry. The threat was significant, but the candidate himself was not. Romney was challenged on ideology by Santorum and Gingrich. Gingrich had a real shot but lacks focus. He could have put together a winning campaign but over thought his campaign every step of the way. Santorum didn't have squat for cash, but focused on the basics and proved to be tough opponent.

I'm of the belief that the 2016 field is basically set. In my opinion it is the strongest field of candidates Republicans have had in a while, and I'd bet money of them will be elected president.

Bring on the 3rd,4th,5th, etc parties...this election cycle like many of it's predecessors blows steaming piles of monkey shit.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I would read an entire blog of SNR breaking down athletes' musical capabilities like draft scouting reports.

A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

It doesn't help when everytime he shows his face on video it's either really good or really bad. I thought Romney did good on 60 minutes, horrible at rnc and really bad on the hidden camera.

A better question is to ask why (at least for the moment) there are a large chunk of independents who don't like Romney in Ohio, Florida, and other swing states. Wisconsin and Michigan were kind of against him from the very beginning, so we don't even need to count those.

I think it's because they think, "He's not like me! He must not care about the issues that matter to me" as if Romney wants to create a country of moguls and peasants.

If that's the case, is it true that even getting a wet fart whiney bitch turd like Jon Huntsman would have been better?

What are Republicans going to do? Not for the guy? Impossible. They want Obama gone.

So it comes down to all the millions of independents in those swing states who don't want to vote for Obama but might end up doing so anyway because they don't want to be peasants. I think they would have voted for Huntsman just because he was a nice guy who was just like them gosh darn it!

That's ironic since they're more likely to end up as peasants if Obama wins.

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton